I've sat through more editor security reviews than I care to remember. Here are the actual quotes from our CISO, InfoSec team, and that one paranoid architect who somehow has veto power over everything.
VS Code: "Fine, But You're Configuring All the Policies Yourself"
Our CISO loved VS Code because Microsoft did the homework for him. Group policies, compliance docs, and audit trails - all the checkbox-ticking enterprise security theater he needed to show auditors.
But here's what the docs don't tell you: VS Code group policies are a fucking nightmare to configure. I spent 3 weeks figuring out how to whitelist extensions without breaking everyone's workflow. The policy templates assume you understand Active Directory better than most IT folks actually do.
What actually works:
- Extension control through GPO (once you figure out the arcane XML syntax)
- Telemetry can be completely disabled (after editing 12 different settings)
- Works air-gapped for those paranoid defense contractors
- Microsoft support actually answers the phone when things break
What nearly broke me:
- DevOps extensions kept getting blocked by corporate antivirus
- Developers found ways around extension policies within 48 hours
- Group policy updates took down VS Code for 200 developers (twice)
- Integration with our SSO required custom cert configuration
The security team loves it because it's predictable Microsoft enterprise bullshit. Developers tolerate it because the alternative was Notepad++.
Zed: "Open Source Doesn't Mean Secure, Kevin"
I was so excited about Zed's performance that I ignored the enterprise reality. Our security architect tore the proposal apart in 15 minutes:
"Where's the Windows support?" (Still beta as of August 2025)
"How do I audit what code gets shared during collaboration?" (You can't)
"What happens when they push malicious code through Git?" (Same as any editor)
"Can I control plugin installation?" (Nope, JSON config files only)
Why the security team almost approved it:
- Source code is public - they could audit it themselves
- No telemetry phoning home to collect data
- Local operation means no cloud dependencies to worry about
- Fast enough that developers might actually use it
Why it got shot down:
- No group policy integration means manual configuration for 200+ machines
- Collaboration features bypass all corporate network monitoring
- Windows support is "coming soon" (famous last words)
- Zero enterprise support - you break it, you fix it
The final nail: our compliance team asked "what happens if Zed Industries gets acquired by a Chinese company?" Open source doesn't solve geopolitical paranoia.
Cursor: "You Want to Send Our Code Where?"
The Cursor demo went great until I mentioned the AI features. Our data privacy officer's exact words: "You want to pipe our entire codebase through OpenAI and you think that's acceptable?"
I tried explaining Cursor's privacy mode but she'd already moved on to calculating GDPR fines. The conversation devolved into a 45-minute debate about data residency, third-party processors, and whether AI training constituted "legitimate business purposes."
What killed the proposal:
- Code goes to external AI providers (OpenAI, Anthropic, etc.)
- No way to guarantee data stays in our AWS region
- $40/month per developer meant $96k annually for our team
- Legal team wanted to review ToS for every AI provider Cursor uses
The CFO's contribution:
"We're paying $40/month for each developer to use a fancy autocomplete that sends our proprietary code to the competition?"
The final security review:
Our CISO asked if we could run Cursor's AI models on-premises. Answer: No. Meeting over.
The developers who tried it during the pilot loved it, but enterprise security killed it faster than our lawyers killed the TikTok corporate account request.
How These Meetings Actually Ended
VS Code won by default. Not because it's the best editor, but because it's the only one that survived our security theater. Microsoft's enterprise checkbox-ticking exercise satisfied auditors, even though half the security controls are security theater.
Zed died because "no Windows support" is a dealbreaker when 60% of your developers are on Windows. The security team liked the open source angle, but IT wasn't supporting two different editor deployments.
Cursor never stood a chance once legal saw "your code may be used to improve AI models" in the privacy policy. The productivity gains were real, but not $96k + legal risk real.
The lesson: in enterprise, the best technical solution rarely wins. The solution that makes the least people nervous wins.
This is the reality nobody talks about in Medium articles about "productivity gains." When you're responsible for 200+ developers, performance benchmarks matter less than avoiding the phone call at 3am because the new editor broke everyone's workflow. The next time someone pitches you the "revolutionary" new editor, ask them about Windows support, group policies, and what happens when your internet goes down.
